Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document

["Teco Boot" <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

Is this catching words?

Agreed that standard "not that clever" behavior of the IP stack is
putting prefixes, configured on interfaces, in the routing table?

Agreed that putting other prefixes is 'something clever'?

Agreed that with the proposed addressing model, under conditions that
the 'something clever' is not functioning, L3 communication fails for
links between two nodes that have L2 communication?

If I am missing something, please come up with it.

Regards, Teco


>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: Thomas Heide Clausen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Verzonden: vrijdag 5 februari 2010 15:11
>Aan: Teco Boot
>CC: [e-mail]
>Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Updated ad hoc addressing model document
>
>Dear Teco,
>
>On Feb 5, 2010, at 09:09 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>>>>>> My point is that L3 communication becomes dependent on a L3
>>>>>> routing
>>>>>> protocol. We didn't have this in the IP stack before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well.....L3 communication depends on a populated routing table,
>>>>> thus
>>>>> on something populating the routing table.
>>>>> L3 multi-hop communications depends on something clever (a routing
>>>>> protocol, a DHCP server, a human, for example and depending on the
>>>>> place) populating routing tables.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see what this document does that changes that?
>>>>
>>>> Up to now, all IP addressing models I am aware of provide 1-hop L3
>>>> communication between nodes that have L2 connectivity.
>>>>
>>>> The proposed addressing model for MANETs breaks this. Now there
>>>> is a need for something clever. This clever thing could be
>>>> stopped.
>>>
>>> What makes the route to the 'local network' appear in the routing
>>> table? In that case the 'something clever' is whatever enters that
>>> route. Often, that 'something clever' is the same thing as what
>>> configures the interface....
>>
>> The IP stack puts the configured prefixes on IP interfaces in the
>> routing table. This provides L3 connectivity whenever there is a L2
>> link.
>> The 'something clever' puts longer prefixes in the routing table.
>
>That's your idea of what constitutes "something clever".....I never
>said that.
>
>> This could introduce multi-hop paths for 1-hop reachable nodes, for
>> sure
>> when link metrics are in place. And of course multi-hop paths to nodes
>> that are in the MANET, but not 1-hop reachable.
>>
>> I strongly disagree with "that 'something clever' is the same thing as
>> what configures the interface".
>
>I think it is quite clever when (quoting you): "The IP stack puts the
>configured prefixes on IP interfaces in the  routing table."
>
>> Our old charter was clear the Autoconf
>> mechanism shall be independent of MANET protocols.
>
>I do not see anything in this document which imposes a MANET protocol.
>
>Thomas
>
>>
>>
>> Regards, Teco.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf